Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 22:58:07 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ftp and mail much slower into fbsd 4.4 vs and old BSDi Message-ID: <55379.1025557087@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Jul 2002 13:50:07 PDT." <20020701134833.E24940-100000@zoot.corp.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20020701134833.E24940-100000@zoot.corp.yahoo.com>, Doug Barton writ es: >On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > >> Mike Silbersack wrote: >> > On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Doug Barton wrote: >> > > The problem is that Terry has described the theory, whereas many of us >> > > who have observed the situation in the real world have noticed that even >> > > on a homogenous network (all with newreno enabled) performance is still >> > > worse than with newreno disabled. >> >> I guess you missed the part where I said that FreeBSD had bugs, and >> Matt Dillon posted patches? > >Nope. I think you missed the part where I said I was talking about >reality, not theory. :) The reality is, it's broken now, and in my >experience, turning it off makes the system "work better." Yes, I can attest to this an I belive it is actually the case on both -current and -releng4 that disabling newreno improves TCP performance. I belive running an X11 application or scp(1) over a wavelan is a very good test-bed for this issue. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55379.1025557087>